Is God capable of evil?

[Sair]

If you are in a completely dark room and were to shine an operating flashlight you would see an illuminated area on the wall. If you were to ask a physicist is the light from the flashlight generating the darkness around the illuminated area and they would respond with a variant of ‘No, the flashlight is generating only the illuminated area via wave-like and particle-like properties light.’ However, the darkness still has the effect of veiling anything that would be on the wall but it is not a thing that is created by the light of the flashlight.

To simply assert that God created evil would not be logically (or in the above example, scientifically) consistent when it is positioned as a privation.

I’m afraid your analogy implicitly denies the omnipotence of your God, by suggesting there are places or situations into which he cannot penetrate to overcome evil.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

I’m afraid your analogy implicitly denies the omnipotence of your God, by suggesting there are places or situations into which he cannot penetrate to overcome evil.

That’s not the case. Just because I choose to illuminate a part of the wall doesn’t mean I cannot illuminate other parts or the entire wall. Not performing something does not equate to an inability to perform something. I am fluent Italian but because I do not use it in a conversation does not deny my capability in it.

 

[Sair]

That’s not the case. Just because I choose to illuminate a part of the wall doesn’t mean I cannot illuminate other parts or the entire wall. Not performing something does not equate to an inability to perform something. I am fluent Italian but because I do not use it in a conversation does not deny my capability in it.

But if you refused to use it where it was necessary, in a wide variety of circumstances, it would make your claim to fluency somewhat eccentric.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

But if you refused to use it where it was necessary, in a wide variety of circumstances, it would make your claim to fluency somewhat eccentric.

I believe you’re begging the question here as there is an implicit assumption that Italian fluency must be demonstrated when necessary and that it’s necessary to show that you are fluent in Italian. Who determines the appropriateness of “necessary” and the “variety of circumstances” required? If it is not necessary, it need not be demonstrated. Presuming that Italian is required all the time is also an “eccentric” position.

 

[JDaniel]

The argument from outrage? No, it’s merely the argument from common sense.

Wanstronian:

Actually that is not an argument from ‘common sense’. Rather it is an argument from ‘Wanstronian dialectic’.

It’s simple. God can apparently do anything - or, according to some apologists, anything that is not logically contradictory. And, God is apparently benevolent.

I’d like to see you, or anyone else you know, or anything else you know of, that can create a universe. Your entire thesis rests on a physical universe that was begun from nothing, by pure chance. Not even “randomness,” but pure chance. In fact, it was from pure chance in some postulated setting that was devoid of anything whatsoever.

Yet earthquakes kill people. Disease kills people. People kill people.

So?.

If God is omnipotent, he could stop this. If he’s benevolent, he should want to stop it.

Why? That is your affectation. Your absolutely human affectation. Common sense would dictate that our Creator God would desire with all of His strength to bring us to Him. And this you call ‘evil?’ For me - and many more herein - it is welcome and not soon enough. Now, isn’t that interesting?

So he’s either not omnipotent, or not benevolent.

That, too, is your affectation. And, a non-sensical one at that.

The only other option is to fabricate all sorts of excuses about why he might choose not to do what any right-minded person would consider to be “the right thing.”

Some of us do that. Others, once thought through, don’t.

Whether or not this satisfies your criterion of a “logical deductive form of the problem of evil” is irrelevant - if we saw analogous behaviour in a human being we would have no problem in labelling that person as evil, in the absence of any other mitigating factors.

No: we would label that person “bad.” Although such a person could lack the qualities and quantities of love, kindness, sensitivity toward others, the desire to alleviate pain and suffering. Thus, ‘evil’ would still be an absence instead of a presence. Only Wanstronian affectations can turn an absence into a presence, a lack of possession of something into the possession of an absence; the hole into the Swiss cheese. And then try to assert that there are calories in that ‘hole’.

There are no mitigating factors excusing God

Because none are needed. Can’t you see that?

God is a lovely fella.

I suppose you believe it to be OK to disparage our God - on our Forum, in writing? You haven’t even the decency to be hospitable here, yet you are suffered! That, I suppose, is my outrage.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Well, it’s easy. There’s no evidence for the existence of God

Wanstronian:

More poignantly, there is absolutely no evidence, nor even a plausible postulation of evidence for anything whatsoever that could been responsible for the creation of this universe, or this multi-verse, or this pulsating universe. Oh, except pure chance from absolutely nothing.

Therefore, any reasoning an apologist might come out with as to why reality doesn’t correlate with the alleged characteristics of omnipotence and benevolence, can be nothing but speculation.

Or, it might be more reasonable to conclude: a Wanstronian affectation. An affectation devoid of merit.

I simply mean that the excuses invented to defend God’s evil make all sorts of unnecessary assumptions and rely upon the apologist pretending to know what this undetectable supernatural ghost is thinking.

Clever: not quite an overt disparagement.

No, I can’t, and I don’t have to. I’m not the one making the claim that he is both of those things. I’m just pointing out that basic observation of world events does not support such a claim.

No: you are merely pointing out only your own point of view.

I don’t need to use philosophical constructs to point out the bleedin’ obvious.

Though perhaps you ought to.

Why do theists keep trying to hide behind philsophy?

Another Wanstronian affectation.

The amount of times I’ve seen posts claiming that unless one is trained in philosophy one can’t understand the arguments. It’s ridiculous. The arguments aren’t complicated, they’re just dumb.

And, yet, another!

God bless,
jd

 

[Sair]

I believe you’re begging the question here as there is an implicit assumption that Italian fluency must be demonstrated when necessary and that it’s necessary to show that you are fluent in Italian. Who determines the appropriateness of “necessary” and the “variety of circumstances” required? If it is not necessary, it need not be demonstrated. Presuming that Italian is required all the time is also an “eccentric” position.

I’m certainly not claiming or presuming that anything is required ‘all the time’ - only that there are some circumstances in which the ability to do something would seem to suggest taking action upon that ability. For example, if I know how to perform an emergency tracheotomy, there are some very specific circumstances in which I would be required to demonstrate such ability if my claim to have it were to be credible. I’m sure we could imagine circumstances in which the ability to speak Italian would be highly preferable as well.

The point is that any claim to ability requires evidence in order to be credible. I could, for example, claim to be the world’s greatest poet. What would you say to such a claim if I had never produced a single stanza? You’d laugh scornfully, no doubt, and rightly so. A claim to ability that is undemonstrated is no claim at all. You cannot excuse your purportedly omnipotent God by saying that he could act but doesn’t - his reasons for inaction would have to be unassailable, and I don’t think they are.

 

[JDaniel]

How are we (and Thomas Aquinas) defining evil? What I mean is, does evil include the subjective suffering of those who are the recipients (from others’ actions, disease, mental anguish, war, poverty, natural catastrophes), or only the behavior of the actors who inflict pain on others? If evil includes both the actor’s behavior and the consequences felt by the recipient, how does this argument explain the recipient’s suffering?

Melterzerboy:

Good question.

In my opinion, ‘evil’ cannot be a thing, in the ontological (if not per se) sense of that word. It can only be one, or the accumulation of a multitude, of defect(s) inherent in matter. Illness is nothing more than the lack (absence) of health, though it may be caused by a pathogen. The pathogen has stripped out the exigencies that allow a creature to exhibit what is the norm, the normal. But, the ‘evil’ is the lack (of good health), not the pathogen. The pathogen is simply a creature trying to stay alive: inextricably attached to its dynamic of life at all urgency. We have no idea why the pathogen exists. We only know that it does.

That brings us to the question of “pain.” Thoughtfully, living things have been provided with mechanics that allow us to feel when we are being attacked by such things as pathogens. Such sensory somatics are, in the main, very beneficial, i.e., not harmful. But, like anything that consists of matter, or matter’s requirements, such sensations can, on occasion, be exaggerated. So, to be correct, we would have to call those somatics both good and evil. But, those words are by their definitions (and our understanding) exclusionary. That is, evil is excluded by good, and visa versa. Otherwise, we would have a square circle, or a pitch black bright light.

The argument as to why God made His creatures thus and so is logically explained: there can only be one God. There can only be one unconditioned reality. Why was matter en-souled? I suppose we’ll know soon enough. All things considered, were it not for the relative rarity of ‘pain and suffering’, the world not be growing 80,000,000 people a year. Reproduction, and its attentive pleasurable acts, are not the results of creatures experiencing pain and suffering; rather, they are the results of people experiencing relative happiness and the pain-free dynamic to carry the species forward.

God bless,
jd

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

I’m certainly not claiming or presuming that anything is required ‘all the time’ - only that there are some circumstances in which the ability to do something would seem to suggest taking action upon that ability.

In my “flashlight” example, I’ve indicated that an area of the wall is illuminated, hence demonstrating capability. Action has been certainly taken in my example. You’re assertion was that my example fundamentally shows limits on ability. To say that because some areas of the wall were not illuminated definitively shows a limit on capability is a logically unsupportable position. You cannot definitively say the flashlight cannot illuminate the entire wall.

The point is that any claim to ability requires evidence in order to be credible.

If we are speaking of God (from a Christian perspective) that is purported to have created the Universe, this certainly represents credible evidence of capability. It definitely shows action on the Creator’s part.

 

[Stylites]

Almost all of Christianity will claim that God is good. But is He capable of evil?

Here’s the NewAdvent article on evil:

newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm

Evil, in a large sense, may be described as the sum of the opposition, which experience shows to exist in the universe, to the desires and needs of individuals; whence arises, among humans beings at least, the sufferings in which life abounds. Thus evil, from the point of view of human welfare, is what ought not to exist. Nevertheless, there is no department of human life in which its presence is not felt; and the discrepancy between what is and what ought to be has always called for explanation in the account which mankind has sought to give of itself and its surroundings. For this purpose it is necessary (1) to define the precise nature of the principle that imparts the character of evil to so great a variety of circumstances, and (2) to ascertain, as far as may be possible, to source from which it arises.

With regard to the nature of evil, it should be observed that evil is of three kinds — physical, moral, and metaphysical.

. . .

 

[meltzerboy]

Melterzerboy:

Good question.

In my opinion, ‘evil’ cannot be a thing, in the ontological (if not per se) sense of that word. It can only be one, or the accumulation of a multitude, of defect(s) inherent in matter. Illness is nothing more than the lack (absence) of health, though it may be caused by a pathogen. The pathogen has stripped out the exigencies that allow a creature to exhibit what is the norm, the normal. But, the ‘evil’ is the lack (of good health), not the pathogen. The pathogen is simply a creature trying to stay alive: inextricably attached to its dynamic of life at all urgency. We have no idea why the pathogen exists. We only know that it does.

That brings us to the question of “pain.” Thoughtfully, living things have been provided with mechanics that allow us to feel when we are being attacked by such things as pathogens. Such sensory somatics are, in the main, very beneficial, i.e., not harmful. But, like anything that consists of matter, or matter’s requirements, such sensations can, on occasion, be exaggerated. So, to be correct, we would have to call those somatics both good and evil. But, those words are by their definitions (and our understanding) exclusionary. That is, evil is excluded by good, and visa versa. Otherwise, we would have a square circle, or a pitch black bright light.

The argument as to why God made His creatures thus and so is logically explained: there can only be one God. There can only be one unconditioned reality. Why was matter en-souled? I suppose we’ll know soon enough. All things considered, were it not for the relative rarity of ‘pain and suffering’, the world not be growing 80,000,000 people a year. Reproduction, and its attentive pleasurable acts, are not the results of creatures experiencing pain and suffering; rather, they are the results of people experiencing relative happiness and the pain-free dynamic to carry the species forward.

God bless,
jd

Thank you for your interesting perspective! I have two points about it. One involves the distinction behavioral medicine makes between “illness” and “disease.” Disease is defined as caused by the physical pathogen (whether infectious or chronic). However, illness brings with it the psychological perspective of the person who has the disease: how they think of themselves and how they think others view them. In this sense, I believe, illness is more than the absence of health. My other point is about the meaning of pain. Leaving aside sexual masochism for the moment, there are subjective properties of pain that would be difficult to categorize as exclusively good or evil. For example, the pain of childbirth is intensely experienced; nonetheless the woman who experiences this pain would not categorize it as evil, due to its positive consequence. The same positive consequence entails the pain caused by dieting, exercise, surgery, or hard work. The immediate subjective experience may be painful, but the anticipatory perception of the outcome can serve to distract, change, and reduce one’s attention to the immediacy of the sensation. In a similar way, I think the pain we experience in the present life (of whatever nature) can be reduced and perhaps even glorified by focusing on and anticipating a better future, both in this life and in the life to come.

 

[tonyrey]

You cannot excuse your purportedly omnipotent God by saying that he could act but doesn’t - his reasons for inaction would have to be unassailable, and I don’t think they are.

Do you think God should constantly intervene to prevent death and suffering to such an extent that everyone is compelled to believe He exists, thereby defeating the purpose of giving us the power to choose what to believe and how to live?

 

[JDaniel]

Thank you for your interesting perspective! I have two points about it. One involves the distinction behavioral medicine makes between “illness” and “disease.” Disease is defined as caused by the physical pathogen (whether infectious or chronic).

Meltzerboy:

I am in agreement. Thank you for going beyond my small contribution. We can certainly add inherent weaknesses and inherited weaknesses. As well as many more. Yet, the ‘evil’ is still the absence of the strength of normalcy, wouldn’t you agree?

However, illness brings with it the psychological perspective of the person who has the disease: how they think of themselves and how they think others view them. In this sense, I believe, illness is more than the absence of health.

Well, could it be an absence of mental health? Or, an absence of self-esteem? Or an absence of “touch” when young? And so on?

My other point is about the meaning of pain. Leaving aside sexual masochism for the moment, there are subjective properties of pain that would be difficult to categorize as exclusively good or evil. For example, the pain of childbirth is intensely experienced; nonetheless the woman who experiences this pain would not categorize it as evil, due to its positive consequence. The same positive consequence entails the pain caused by dieting, exercise, surgery, or hard work. The immediate subjective experience may be painful, but the anticipatory perception of the outcome can serve to distract, change, and reduce one’s attention to the immediacy of the sensation. In a similar way, I think the pain we experience in the present life (of whatever nature) can be reduced and perhaps even glorified by focusing on and anticipating a better future, both in this life and in the life to come.

Absolutely. Thank you for reminding us. Occasionally we get focused on what we perceive to be the most important things in our lives and, thus, we extrapolate them to others. We have no right to do that.

God bless,
jd

 

[Sair]

Do you think God should constantly intervene to prevent death and suffering to such an extent that everyone is compelled to believe He exists, thereby defeating the purpose of giving us the power to choose what to believe and how to live?

If belief in God is crucial for salvation, if said God were benevolent, he/she/it would take steps to ensure everyone had sufficient impetus to believe, beyond reasonable doubt.

Do we have the option of believing in gravity? Do you choose this belief of your own free will?

 

[Sair]

In my “flashlight” example, I’ve indicated that an area of the wall is illuminated, hence demonstrating capability. Action has been certainly taken in my example. You’re assertion was that my example fundamentally shows limits on ability. To say that because some areas of the wall were not illuminated definitively shows a limit on capability is a logically unsupportable position. You cannot definitively say the flashlight cannot illuminate the entire wall.

And if the flashlight repeatedly succeeded in illuminating only a portion of the wall, that would be a pretty strong case for claiming its ability was limited, no? You might study the capacity of the flashlight further and conclude that, in fact, its capacity is indeed limited to illuminating only a portion of the wall, because that’s just how the laws of physics operate. When you’re making claims about the abilities of an invisible, undetectable supernatural entity, the option of extensive investigation remains unavailable. Hence, all you have are unsubstantiated claims of ability, and inevitable questions about why said ability is not used when it clearly could be.

If we are speaking of God (from a Christian perspective) that is purported to have created the Universe, this certainly represents credible evidence of capability. It definitely shows action on the Creator’s part.

Sure it does. But it doesn’t show the action of an all-powerful, all-knowing and benevolent being. It shows the action of a being that is/was either heavily constrained, or just largely indifferent to the plight of sentient creatures. So you’re left in the rather awkward circumstance of relying, for your belief in the Christian God, upon evidence that suggests someone quite unlike the Christian God, if it suggests anyone at all.

 

[tonyrey]

But it doesn’t show the action of an all-powerful, all-knowing and benevolent being. It shows the action of a being that is/was either heavily constrained, or just largely indifferent to the plight of sentient creatures.

If an orderly system is extremely complex it is inevitable that its creator is heavily constrained by its laws and that some of its consequences are negative.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

And if the flashlight repeatedly succeeded in illuminating only a portion of the wall, that would be a pretty strong case for claiming its ability was limited, no?

As we have only one Universe to evaluate, this line of reasoning is currently pointless.

Sure it does. But it doesn’t show the action of an all-powerful, all-knowing and benevolent being. It shows the action of a being that is/was either heavily constrained, or just largely indifferent to the plight of sentient creatures. So you’re left in the rather awkward circumstance of relying, for your belief in the Christian God, upon evidence that suggests someone quite unlike the Christian God, if it suggests anyone at all.

To come to the conclusion that there are supposed constraints based on an instance doesn’t appear to be sound evaluation. No person of reason or science would reach a definitive conclusion based on a single event. In our Universe’s case, we are aware of what was done, not what can be done. As for God’s being indifferent to our plight, that is mere personal inferrence on your part.

 

[Sair]

As we have only one Universe to evaluate, this line of reasoning is currently pointless.

To come to the conclusion that there are supposed constraints based on an instance doesn’t appear to be sound evaluation. No person of reason or science would reach a definitive conclusion based on a single event. In our Universe’s case, we are aware of what was done, not what can be done. As for God’s being indifferent to our plight, that is mere personal inferrence on your part.

It’s equally valid to say that the assumption of an all-powerful, all-knowing, benevolent creator is not a sound evaluation. No person of reason or science would conclude, on the basis of such evidence as we have, that the Christian God undoubtedly exists or is even likely to exist, when weighed against all other possibilities.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

It’s equally valid to say that the assumption of an all-powerful, all-knowing, benevolent creator is not a sound evaluation. No person of reason or science would conclude, on the basis of such evidence as we have, that the Christian God undoubtedly exists or is even likely to exist, when weighed against all other possibilities.

This does not follow our discussion and is a non-sequitur. The thread is concerning whether or not God is responsbile for evil. Our digression is concerning whether or not a definitive conclusion based on a single event delimits capability, reiterated as what was done compared to what can be done and is not about whether or not God exists.

 

[Prophesy]

I wonder what it means for Christ to have been tempted. What exactly is meant by this? Does it mean that He suffered all the negative feelings associated with temptation, because He was in a human body suffering the corrupting effects of nature after the Fall (all of this, somehow, without Original Sin), even though it was logically impossible for Him to sin?

Also, how was the process for temptations to Mary different?

It’s an interesting discussion, but what I think we have to differentiate with temptation and evil. It is not an evil thing to be tempted, and Christ undergoing temptation is part of the human side of His nature. But to resist is divine. Jesus was tempted to do evil, but He did not commit evil because of His being love incarnate.

Mary doesn’t have this divinity, but was able to bare temptation and live immaculately through divine grace to make her a suitable vessel for Christ.

-Prophesy